Why hasn't this been a problem for Zoom? If somebody has data about government employees or even recordings of meetings then it is Zoom, not TikTok.

There have been some concerns about Zoom, but as far as why the feds don't care as much? Not sure, but if I were to guess:

* I bet feds and their employees/contractors are not using zoom for official business

* Most people aren't really putting their personal lives on zoom outside of work

Because I can file a lawsuit against Zoom or I can speak to the press and have them investigate any evidence I may have.

You can't do either with a Chinese company.

TikTok is not a Chinese company, it operates under US laws. You're just repeating disinformation spread by the US government.

> TikTok is not a Chinese company, it operates under US laws.

TikTok is a subsidiary of ByteDance which is headquartered in Beijing. It operates under US law, and it operates under the control of a parent company that operates under CCP control.

> You're just repeating disinformation spread by the US government.

The claims made by the person you are responding to are not things the US government has said. In fact, you can file suit against foreign companies in the US -- this person's misunderstanding of the situation has nothing to do with the US government's stated concerns.

You can file a lawsuit against any company that operates in the USA.

WeChat is a more credible threat but the anglosphere media is mostly ignorant of them so TikTok it is.

WeChat isn't a threat because barely any Americans use it.

Many Chinese Americans use it to communicate with family. Some of them work on sensitive programs and are easily monitored by a multi app with broad permissions.

Chinese immigrants are the primary users in the states, and they don’t use it for any economic transactions in the USA, obviously (stores might support wepay, but that is targeted at Chinese tourists).

That is why I said “barely any”, instead of “zero”.

The executive order targets wechat as well.

Isnt Trump's action including Wechat/Tencent as well?

Zoom is a US company

And zoom is not controlled by a Chinese company under the control of CCP

The joke is, kids/K-Pop fans communicated on TikTok to "prank" Trump by buying tickets to his rally and not showing up, making him look bad, and 10 days later Trump started roaring about the app.

Of course Fox News, etc, claim "this Chinese app is subverting democracy", etc, but IMHO they were just using it to communicate...

I would hope the majority of people who are aware of international affairs do not think so lowly of the American people, so dimly of American government, and so shallowly of international politics, that they'd believe our president would (or be allowed to, for that matter) coordinate a government-wide subversion campaign with far-reaching consequences over a prank

I mean this is the same President who falsified a weather map using a sharpie because it violated what he had said earlier in mistake (I am guessing it was a mistake).

He was allowed to coordinate a government-wide campaign that was impacting a large amount of people, and violated various integrity codes of NOAA and resulted in citizens being provided with false information, as well as eroded the trust of people in an integral agency.

Not sure about the majority, but I do think dimly of the American government. Especially the last 4 years. As for the people? When they vote in QAnon supporters into congress ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-congress-con... )...

But on being "allowed to", incredibly Trump is surrounded by Yes-Men, and it seems only fools dare accept his appointment, even fools whose reputation was great so far in their lives: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/10/john-kelly-le... . Of course there are a lot things Congress and Senate can do to block him (but Mitch McConnell is another Yes-men, what is it with conservatives and their lack of spines?), but in the example of TikTok, he used executive order to demand the stuff.

Come on, this is Trump we are talking about, all form of reason and decorum was thrown out the window along time ago.

Whether he is allowed to or not is up for the courts to decide.

We're still talking about Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump here, aren't we?

ANYTHING is possible in the USA since that guy got president.

You do realize Barack Obama fucked his wife right? Multiple times as they have 2 children. They probably talk dirty to each other when they're alone, like almost every other couple that exists.

Should I now think less of Obama on the off chance he secretly spanks his wife in bed?

My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours. And to then equate vulgar chat in private conversation somehow with the idea that nonsense is suddenly an acceptable state for Americans. You can think what you want.

>My point is you have to be very far removed from society to believe that no one has ever talked in a vulgar fashion, especially in a country as sexualized as ours.

Using vulgar phraseology is not the issue here. I'm not sure how you came away with that impression.

Yet it is, but for the sake of fast-forwarding the disagreement, let's assume for now that Drake, or any other male rapper celebrity, or any other celebrity period, or any semi-famous man has never in private conversation talked about how easy it is for them to take advantage of their celebrity status to get what they want from women.

When you assume that, then the president looks quite like the rare unique case, wouldn't you say?

At the very best then, it'd be the way he said it (so, the phrasing) combined with the fact he's the president (or was running to be), a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens, and combined with the fact that just because Drake might do it, it doesn't mean it's an OK thing to do. I don't know about other people, but I'd definitely criticize anyone for not only using their status to grope people, but then to brag about it. To brag about it betrays a certain mindset and characteristic of disrespect for people, and in this case, women.

In other words, I'd think lesser of my friend for saying something like that to me, or overhearing him in another conversation. The same goes doubly for the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet.

You're perfectly free to decide how you view someone based on what they've said. My issue is do not then assume that everyone who isn't as offended is somehow being unreasonable or that the world has descended into nonsense. I don't condone what he says, but I understand that people do say those things, and I separate what he says in confidence from how he acts in situations where it matters - I see a 0% chance that the president will talk about groping when having a discussion with Vladimir Putin.

>a role which we expect not only the highest levels of decorum but also humility and respect for the citizens

That has never been the case. Nixon was known to vilify journalists, Clinton had already been known for his womanizing and sexual unforwardness, and LBJ pissed in the street casually. Never have we had a highly curated robot as a president, they all have quirks that would turn off segments of the population if it were common knowledge.

Why are you focusing on the vulgarity of the comments and not the fact that it would be non-concensual?

> I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Those very heavily imply non-consent. The vulgarity comes much later as an issue.

More so, Obama spanking his wife in bed is a hopefully consensual private act between husband and wife. Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.

Rather different scenarios.

I honestly cannot see why you'd think I would listen to what he said and use that to form a general opinion of his leadership capabilities. How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country

>Trump talking about random women, who are not his wives nor in a relationship with him as to how he just kisses them and they let him since he has the power is for one, rape, and two, cheating on his wife.

I'd rather not have a discussion on the ethics of gossip, as it would achieve absolutely nothing

> How one talks about fondling random women is not something I'd use as a measure of their ability to lead a country

Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?

On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star, that's not gossip since the courts have basically confirmed Stormy Daniels told the truth.

How shallow does your judgement go (oh I can guess, but I thought I'd prompt you to do some self-reflection)? Being a leader is mostly about people skills, and his rapey hands should make you ask whether he respects women or not, and whether that would extend to him respecting other people or not. OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast.

> Being a leader is mostly about people skills

I don't agree with this. Being a leader is more about vision, about where he wanna go. Like Jobs, everyone under him thought he was an asshole. A lot of great leaders in human history were just pretty bad examples in terms of personal life. It is nice to have a high moral standard for political figures. But it is just difficult to be perfect. Obama, from my point view, is a nice man. But a failed president achieved nothing during his presidency.

From your 2 replies I'm presuming you are a Trump defender, at least you're denying parts of reality and twisting facts so they conform to your image of the world (that he's a good, at least decent president, and that you're not an idiot for supporting him).

Sorry, the issue isn't the private conversation, the issue is that the contents of that conversation was him saying he can get away sexually assaulting women because of he's a "star". If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?

I can't reply to your other post, presumably because the thread is too deep. For one, you continue to make assumptions about me. By all means feel free, if this year has been any indication I can only expect the vilification of anyone not immediately damning the president will continue.

>Holy bejesus. And how is his ability to lead a country? Do you think it is as good/poor as how he seemingly treat random women?

I don't know how to get across to you the point that people talk about dirty things in private. If you want to believe that that kind of conversation is the domain of devils, be my guest, you don't seem like the type to be swayed by reason.

>On the topic of ethics, how about the ethics of having sex with (and then paying off) a porn star

I still don't care, unsurprisingly. It really isn't that hard.

>How shallow does your judgement go

Because I choose not to base your abilities on how you talk to your friends in private? Then release all of your text messages for the public to see, since you seem to be living in a reality where people all hold hands and sing kumbaya, and talk about science and hand-holding every waking moment of the day. You have a job, don't you? Would you also be so deaf to posit to me you don't have any skeletons in your closet? I'm able to make the reasonable judgement that the president doesn't go around for his scheduled 2 PM rape session every Thursday, but apparently that's too much, and I should dial back my comparisons to the guy's humanity.

>OK Genghis Khan was a good leader, he also did a lot of raping, sadly for Trump and his defenders the kind of leadership needed nowadays isn't the 11th century kind and I doubt he could ride a horse fast

Truly ironic that you're simultaneously able to make the distinction there is not a 1:1 correlation with leadership capability and personal action for a literal rapist but not for the president. If anything this discussion has shown me how disgustingly vapid people can become when they are unable to refrain from having their emotion leak through every single post when the word "Trump" is brought up.

Yes of course, because anyone who would dare to not fill their post with detriment of the president, must in fact also support the president, contrary to any information otherwise.

Assume what you want, I don't support Trump and apparently I don't need to attract hate from others like you, not that I am in any way suprised.

>If Barack Obama was recorded saying something like that while talking to friends, would you defend him?

I wouldn't care. Not a single bone in my body would resonate emotionally with what he said, because seemingly I have the rare, esoteric knowledge of understanding that humans will talk about particularly dirty topics when they're with friends.

Bytedance is incorporated in the Cayman Island, its not a Chinese company. It has a subsidiary in Hong Kong that operates the Chinese business. Its this portion of the business that has to adhere to Chinese laws. The rest of the company, including the US subsidiary is not under the jurisdiction of Chinese laws, and the US subsidiary fully owns TikTok. The data storage and content moderation are all handled by US employees. If the parent company or Chinese government is forcing US employees to censor based on Chinese government demands or steal US data, I am pretty sure US employees would have said something by now. Instead, they seem to proud of the security work they have done. I have seen a lot of anti-China videos on TikTok.

The US subsidiary of Bytedance that operates TikTok is subjected to US jurisdiction and US laws. US government has equal amount of control over it compared to Facebook. TikTok was sued and fined before for breaking under age related laws.

Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible. Working on behalf of the government, nah, its not their mindset. To be honest, it might be even smart for the US government to lure Bytedance management, get them to declare they support liberalism and American values and use Bytedance to spread American values to China. Instead, US gov's action to force a sale is basically extortion and coercion. And having government take a huge chuck of the transaction is stealing personal property. It goes against all that US stands for, rule of law, justice, protection of private property. There are a lot of people in China loves the US and American values like the above, in turn they emigrate to the US and hate Chinese government. That image has definitely being broken a bit by all of this.

> Bytedance is incorporated in the Cayman Island, its not a Chinese company. It has a subsidiary in Hong Kong that operates the Chinese business.

The location of incorporation bears no relevance on the control on the people and property within the physical jurisdiction of a country. Bytedance's physical headquarters is in Beijing.

> Bytedance's CEO is Zhang yiming, is a Chinese national. And its board has one Chinese national and three non-Chinese nationals. It's owned by a number of international investors, these investors likely have a say in the company as well. These people would not have built a company with Chinese government DNA. Zhang yiming himself has criticized the government in the past. Although he has toed with Chinese government lines in China because he has to. But he personally admires the US and its political culture. The management is also saying they are moving HQ to other countries. I think given the management's mindset, they really want to deal as little with the Chinese government as possible

Then it should be clear how much power the CCP has over them, when he says things like this:

> in April 2018 the government compelled ByteDance to shut down its popular “Neihan Duanzi” (“inside jokes”) app for good due to its “vulgar” content. In response, Zhang issued a letter of self-criticism where he said, “Our product took the wrong path, and content appeared that was incommensurate with socialist core values.” He also promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.” [0]

[0]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/16/bytedance-cant-outrun-b...

Bear in mind here, I am simply listing reasons why the US government would be marginally concerned about ByteDance in comparison to domestic social media, not defending the mechanisms by which this current administration is handling things.

You are so naive. Just like how naive Hongkongnese was 23 years ago. "One country, two system" was bait. Huawei and tiktok were also baits. Now they seems harmless. But will be not when they show their true color.

There is no point in showing facts, people here are operating under Trump's misinformation spell. They think china is in every corner trying to steal their data (of course Facebook has already done this first, but who cares).

You misunderstand the concern. The US government is concerned about national security interests, not personal privacy interests. You may also note [0] that Facebook (and Twitter, and YouTube) has been the subject of similar concerns by the US government.

[0]: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-targets-so...

> They think china is in every corner trying to steal their data

Because they factually are. But as some people misunderstand, they're not interested in your grandma's recipes or your mom's credit card number -- they're amassing data that is a gold mine for targeted military intelligence operations.

https://www.wired.com/story/china-equifax-anthem-marriott-op...